So I’ve missed the last few weeks of posting. As I mentioned, my family and I have moved to a new state, and so I have been quite busy with real life rather than with online forums. But I am trying to get back into the swing of things, and have been working on an essay that I promised some time ago, discussing how it is possible to live a life entirely without faith. That essay is now done and posted. It is probably a bit more rambling that I would like, but I figured it better to get a draft out than to keep working on it. After all, I am fully intending to revise all of these documents based on comments that come in as I can.
There has been some fantastic discussion in the comments on my previous essay, Belief vs. Faith. I am still intending to revise that document based on the feedback I have received, but am not sure when that’s going to fit into the schedule. There is a definite tension between revising published material and producing new material.
This week’s post concerns the concept of the supernatural, particularly with respect to claims of miracles. In this essay, I discuss the apparent lack of adequate evidence for anything supernatural ever having happened, which raises the bar in terms of required evidence for an claimed supernatural event. I further express discontent over the notion of the supernatural itself, which seems to be an incoherent concept. As always, I welcome comments, criticisms, and suggestions. Enjoy!
Update: My last few essays have been focusing on laying the groundwork for discussion (establishing that in order to convince me of anything, we’ll need to be talking on an evidentiary basis, and that claims of the supernatural are going to require extraordinary evidence). While there is certainly still plenty of groundwork that can be laid, I probably should start balancing out the content of this site by having my next essay specifically address one of the common arguments in favor of God’s existence. There are several good choices, which I will list below. I would welcome any suggestions about the ones you, my readers, would be most interested in me tackling first. The possibilities that come immediately to mind are:
- Argument from first cause
- Fine tuning of the universe
- Intelligent design
- Argument from the resurrection of Jesus Christ (This topic is covered indirectly in my essay on arguments from scripture)
- Lord, Liar, Lunatic (This topic is covered indirectly in my essay on arguments from scripture)
- Argument from necessity of God for objective morality (This topic is being covered in a series of posts, including Morality vs. Ethics, Origins of the Ethical Imperative, Social Evolution: The Origins of Ethics, and a couple of further posts that have yet to be written)
Update: The essay I wrote was on the argument from first cause, and is linked to above.
2nd Update: I have written some more of the essays mentioned above, and have added links to them.
I am again a bit ahead of schedule with my new document post. Tuesday’s offering, here posted three days early, is, as promised, a discussion of belief and faith. In it I argue that when faith is understood as a particular manner of holding a belief, in which evidence is not part of the reason for holding it, then faith itself is both uncorrectable if wrong and dangerous to society. A conclusion that arises from this argument is my first real explanation for my atheism: if it is only valid to believe those things for which there are evidence, and if the evidence for the existence of god(s) is unconvincing, then atheism is the natural stance to adopt.
I had said in my preview of this document that I would include a discussion of how it is possible to live a life that doesn’t include faith at all, and I still intend to write a document on that subject. However, this document is already extremely long, and it would probably be best to break things up a bit. I will therefore address that topic in a future essay. (Update: I have now written that essay.)
The only other significant changes to the site involve updates to the about page to reflect the descriptions I used in my opening blog post.
So far on this blog, there has been minimal dialog or debate. This is not surprising, for several reasons. First, of course, the blog is new, and readership is not particularly huge (although stats have shown 275 views, which is pretty good!). Second, I have not advertised the site widely, relying primarily on word-of-mouth, and many of the folks that have initially taken a look at the site are also on the atheist side of things. Third, and possibly most importantly, the two main documents I have posted so far consist of (a) a technical discussion of an obscure issue and (b) simple definitions of atheism and agnosticism. In short, I have not yet provided an argument for atheism. My next document is going to take a large step in that direction. I am offering a preview here in order to solicit arguments and counterarguments that I can ensure that I address in that post. Continue reading